I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).

So, what's a clearer demonstration of someone who's social functions need improvement: A person able to navigate their path home after joining friends in the world's oldest festive traditions...or someone who camps out on the cold streets at night trying to film the aftermath in hopes that they get some attention?

fullyautomatic:I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).

No it's not. I work at a pizza joint with a bunch of high school an college students. All these videos do is encourage them to see if they can top them. For a while it was kind of funny, but now it jut makes me weep for the future.

Any time I see a campaign being led by an alcohol or cigarette company willingly paying for a campaign against their own product, I just assume they picked what they knew would be the least effective option. It's all PR bullshiat, usually to get the government or religious people off their back.

If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a good time, is damn strong.

edmo:If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a good time, is damn strong.

glmorrs1:fullyautomatic: I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).

No it's not. I work at a pizza joint with a bunch of high school an college students. All these videos do is encourage them to see if they can top them. For a while it was kind of funny, but now it jut makes me weep for the future.

That's like the breathalyzers they used to put in bars. They had to take them all out again when customers were competing for high score.

FrancoFile:edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?

This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particularly in the case of "<favorited!>" comments, but I digress.

Now the playing down, sarcasm and rhetorical question** all imply some sort of emotional involvement on FF's part. Was a family member flattened by a reckless driver? Was FF once urinated on by a drunk? Certainly, this emotional angle suggest that in actual fact FF really does not know the difference between having a good time and reckless driving. He actually sees the two as synonymous. If we give FF the credit of saying he does not do reckless driving himself, we are forced to conclude, based on his world view inferred from his comment, that he does not have a good time.

He evidently lives a miserable, empty life, devoid of parties and social interaction. His is a live of consuming, bitter envy, expressed in pointless little comments such as the above on forums. A sad man in every way, his impact on the human race is that if a feather, broken and torn and smeared with bird poo.

While you may not agree, such a point of view does has a longstanding tradition.Consider this famous, yet obscure poet:

"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks,who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent."

Mister Buttons:Any time I see a campaign being led by an alcohol or cigarette company willingly paying for a campaign against their own product, I just assume they picked what they knew would be the least effective option. It's all PR bullshiat, usually to get the government or religious people off their back.

THIS

It's a clever campaign. "Look at how dumb drinkers are". And that'll work on the humourless puritans - they'll think it's the booze industry doing their job, but for people with a sense of humour, we are laughing along with them, because we've all been there. I'm even looking at those videos and thinking "you know what, I really haven't had a serious night out with the guys for a while".

You'll get people to stop getting drunk when the downsides far outweigh the upsides. I've been out, got drunk, had a good time with friends and then fallen over on the pavement and grazed my face and you know, the evening was still worth it. We all know the odds of something seriously bad happening because it hardly ever happens to us or our friends.

I don't know what's worse: nosy HRs and recruiters perusing that site to see who they'll fire or not hire, or drunkards discouraged into getting or staying drunk because they live in a society where jobs are a luxury item in the first place.

THE GREAT NAME:FrancoFile: edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?

This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particular ...

TGN starts logically, albeit pedantically, and gradually increases the personal attacks against me. Then in the last paragraph they increase exponentially.

TGN did this for one of three reasons1) He's attempting to troll, but only succeeding at a rate of 6/10 by trying to hard in the last paragraph2) He's ironically commenting on the pop-psychology and philosophy 101 arguments that proliferate on Fark3) He really means what he says, in which case I will favorite him as "moran"

/no problem with being drunk//I sell alcohol for a living///ad campaign is stupid and largely ineffective; better to use norming//punish people who are a danger to others, who are an extreme danger to themselves, or who violate the social contract so egregiously that they become a major nuisance and/or cost to society/fun has nothing to do with it

TGN did this for one of three reasons1) He's attempting to troll, but only succeeding at a rate of 6/10 by trying to hard in the last paragraph2) He's ironically commenting on the pop-psychology and philosophy 101 arguments that proliferate on Fark3) He really means what he says, in which case I will favorite him as "moran"

/no problem with being drunk//I sell alcohol for a living///ad campaign is stupid and largely ineffective; better to use norming//punish people who are a danger to others, who are an extreme danger to themselves, or who violate the social contract so egregiously that they become a major nuisance and/or cost to society/fun has nothing to do with itThis defensive, self-conscious and diversionary response proves NAME's analysis was indeed correct.

FrancoFile:THE GREAT NAME: FrancoFile: edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?

This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really ...

THE GREAT NAME: The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particularly in the case of "<favorited!>" comments, but I digress.

Now the playing down, sarcasm and rhetorical question** all imply some sort of emotional involvement on FF's part. Was a family member flattened by a reckless driver? Was FF once urinated on by a drunk? Certainly, this emotional angle suggest that in actual fact FF really does not know the difference between having a good time and reckless driving. He actually sees the two as synonymous. If we give FF the credit of saying he does not do reckless driving himself, we are forced to conclude, based on his world view inferred from his comment, that he does not have a good time.

He evidently lives a miserable, empty life, devoid of parties and social interaction. His is a live of consuming, bitter envy, expressed in pointless little comments such as the above on forums. A sad man in every way, his impact on the human race is that if a feather, broken and torn and smeared with bird poo.

* yes, affect** actually no such thing on forums

-----WRONG!! FAIL!!!!!You mean *effect not affect. I just love it when people try to seem smart with this one and screw it up. I am a perfectionist when it comes to our language, and this type of thing irks me beyond measure. Please remove whatever college degrees you may have from the wall and place immediately into the shredder. I keep this one bookmarked just for this: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/affect-vs-effect/Affect is a verb, exception joined with -ion like affection. Effect is a noun, defined as the result of a cause. Used in your sentence it would be: The effect [result of a cause] FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. Or you could say: FF is trying to affect us in a kind of off-hand casual way.

fullyautomatic:WRONG!! FAIL!!!!!You mean *effect not affect. I just love it when people try to seem smart with this one and screw it up. I am a perfectionist when it comes to our language, and this type of thing irks me beyond measure. Please remove whatever college degrees you may have from the wall and place immediately into the shredder.

Dude, it's a message board post, not a English doctorate thesis. People make typos, a lot (or is it alot??? Oh no) of them write these things on their phones. No one's impressed by your lording your knowledge of 8th grade grammar over us.